Research Methods
in Taxation History
By
Jane Frecknall-Hughes
Professor of Revenue Law
The Open University, Milton Keynes,
MK7 6AA, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
1
Overview
1. Introduction
2. The approach to tax research
3. Specific issues in legal research
4. Turning to tax history
5. History research
6. Conclusion
2
1. Introduction
The purpose of the paper is to shed some light on methods
used to research tax history.
This is an area of growing academic interest.
There is no prior discussion of research methods and it is
rare for tax history researchers to be explicit about their
methodology/methods…
…And so, perhaps the right time?
3
2. The approach to tax research
Accounting
Financial
Accounting
Management
Accounting
Tax
Auditing
4
2. The approach to tax research (cont.)
Law
Tort
Tax
Criminal
Contract
5
2. The approach to tax research (cont.)
“Taxation is not a discipline in its own right, but a social
phenomenon that can be studied through various disciplinary
lenses. Commonly, taxation attracts researchers from the
disciplines of law, accounting economics, political science,
psychology and philosophy. These disciplinary backgrounds
are each understandably narrow, and, in spite of researchers
being no doubt experts in their fields, it can be challenging to
apply their skills and knowledge to the complexities of
research problems that emanate from the study of taxation.”
McKerchar, 2008: 5–6
6
2. The approach to tax research (cont.)
Management
Accounting
and
Psychology
Finance
Political
Science
Economics
N.B. work looking at
research methods in
taxation: McKerchar,
2008, 2010; Oats, 2012a.
Taxation
Law
Philosophy
History
Sociology
7
2. The approach to tax research (cont.)
Data collection methods –
sampling, secondary data,
observation, interviews, questionnaires
Time horizons – cross
sectional, longitudinal
Choices – mono
method, mixed methods
multi-method
Research
philosophy –
positivism,
realism,
interpretivism,
pragmatism
NB direct and critical
realism
Research strategies –
Research approaches –
experiment, survey, case
deductive, inductive – and study, action research, grounded theory,
now abductive (2012)
8
ethnography, archival research
Saunders et al., 2009: 108 (adapted)
2. The approach to tax research (cont.)
“[a] critical realist seeks to answer both the ‘how’ and ‘why’
questions. In terms of the underlying ontology, a critical
realist sees greater complexity in the relationships under
study, going beyond the depths of empirical realism.
Researchers who subscribe to this paradigm would typically
allow the research design to be driven by what was wanted to
be learnt, rather than to be pre-ordained. A pragmatist has a
similar approach and freely chooses the methods, techniques
and procedures that best meet the needs and purposes of the
research”.
McKerchar, 2008: 8
9
2. The approach to tax research (cont.)
… But ossification …
“In 2010 Hanlon and Heitzman published a paper that
purports to present a review of tax research in accounting, as
well as economics and finance, to the extent that they overlap
with accounting … While acknowledging that tax research
emerges in different disciplines with different perspectives,
the authors nonetheless proceed to describe tax research in
accounting as being exclusively in the positivist domain,
without any recognition that alternatives are available. This
is curious, because within accounting research generally,
while the positivist mainstream maintains its hegemony, most
particularly in North America, there is nonetheless a clearly
defined and well respected alternative strand of scholarship
that embraces interpretivism in all its various guises”.
Oats, 2012b: 242 10
3. Specific issues in legal research
Legal research is seen as somehow ‘different’.
It appears to have lagged in methodological terms.
It is often construed to be about process and skills
(practice-driven?), though there is some theoretical material.
The underlying research paradigm(s) are “unarticulated”.
However, it could be part of the broad spectrum …
11
3. Specific issues in legal research (cont.)
“It could be positivist and employ a quantitative methodology
based on empirical evidence – for example, how often has the
law changed this century, how often has a particular section
been the subject of a legal dispute, how long are various
sections, or how easy is a piece of legislation to read? In
contrast, it could be interpretivist and based on social
construct – for example, what impact has the introduction of
a baby bonus has on fertility rates in Australia? ... Critical
realism or pragmatism may well offer a more comfortable
paradigm fit for legal researchers than either of the two
extremes of positivism and interpretivism”.
McKerchar, 2008: 8
12
3. Specific issues in legal research (cont.)
… But it is often classified as:
- doctrinal ( = ‘black letter’ or literal analysis of rules
and principles, which may be consistent with
deductive reasoning); or
- non-doctrinal, e.g., socio-legal studies (studies
‘about law’ not ‘in law’), which does use
methodologies commonly used in other
disciplines.
13
4. Turning to tax history
History
Taxation
Law
Layer 1
Layer 2
Legal history
14
5. History research
There are many works which look at history research
methods, but Black and MacCraild (2000) suggest that
searches for facts predominate.
However:
“… history is unique among social and political disciplines in
that it has no particular jargon or mysterious mathematical
method. All the methodological principles of the historian are
derived from common sense and are as much within the
intellectual capacity of a freshman at a junior college as of a
professor at Oxford”.
Cantor and Schneider, 1967: 29
Emphasis on validity and reliability of sources: beware
‘schools’ and interpretive bias(es).
15
5. History research (cont.)
Until recently, nothing was written on legal history research
methods.
As a result of the 19th British Legal History Conference,
‘Making Legal History: Methodologies, Sources and
Substance’, held at the University of Exeter, 8–11 July 2009, a
book was produced entitled Making Legal History:
Approaches and Methodologies, edited by Anthony Musson
and Chantal Stebbings, which addressed this lacuna.
Comments by some of the authors show, perhaps, that legal
history too has lagged behind other areas in terms of
methodological considerations.
16
5. History research (cont.)
Until recently, nothing was written on legal history research
methods.
The pre-eminent legal historian, Sir John Baker, comments
in the first chapter on ‘doing’ legal history:
“After due reflection, I have come to the conclusion that I
have no easily describable method, perhaps no method at all
apart from the indulgence of curiosity. My main thesis here is
that there may be some merit in this”.
Baker, 2012: 7
17
5. History research (cont.)
He continues:
“… there are a number of approaches to consider. One might
simply read what others have written and pick holes in it – there
are always holes in anything. This is a rather negative method, but
one which suits some temperaments well and is not devoid of
value. It is more effective when coupled with some positive
suggestions for setting the story straight. A second approach
might be to pose some fundamental question about law and
society, law and economics, or law and something else, or even
just law, and then set off to see what can be found by way of a
possible answer. This is a more beguiling method, but quite a
risky one, because is may be that there is no evidence – or
insufficient evidence on which to base an answer worth
considering – in which case there is a temptation to fill in the gaps
with speculation.”
18
Baker, 2012:
7
5. History research (cont.)
Sir John’s third method (possibly owing something to an
interest in archaeology):
“has been to delve into the available sources first and see
what kinds of question they raise or might answer … I have
benefited from the freedom to collect material at random over
along period of years, stuffing notebooks and wearing out
many pencils, until it became necessary to introduce finding
aids to my own notes.”
Baker, 2012: 7–8
It is not unduly difficult to frame any of Sir John’s approaches
in terms of the “research onion”.
19
5. History research (cont.)
This was the approach adopted by Frecknall-Hughes (2012) in
her chapter on ‘Re-examining King John and Magna Carta:
Reflections on Reasons, Methodology and Methods’, which is
focused on tax history does precisely this – effectively
combining Sir John’s first and second methods.
20
5. History research (cont.)
The chapter puts forward the thesis that Magna Carta was
the outcome of a tax revolt by the barons, which was given
weight when relevant secondary literature was examined.
The theory was developed by looking at the creation of
‘add-ons’ by King John, creation of new taxes, increases in
rates and frequency and opportunistic behaviour, through a
series of inductive/deductive loops, with reference to Magna
Carta itself for further support.
This in turn generated a further theory, that 25 barons
(named in Clause 61) who agreed to act as suretors for the
king’s promises made in the Magna Carta, would be likely to
have had their own fiscal grievances which led to them being
willing to undertake this task.
21
5. History research (cont.)
Topic idea
Investigate source –
inductive process (realism)
Theory 1: (baronial)
tax revolt
Theory 2:
particular grievances
of named barons
‘Deductive loops’
Magna
Carta
Clause 61
‘Add-ons’
New taxes
Frequency
Rate increase
Opportunism
Identity of rebellious
barons
Results - triangulation from multiple
sources of evidence, secondary and
primary
Confidence in findings
Path through the “research onion”, demonstrating inductive/deductive process
22
5. History research (cont.)
By reference to the “research onion” above, the path is as follows:
Research philosophy
Realism (critical)
Research approach
Deductive and Inductive (now referred to by
Saunders et al. (2012: 128) as “abductive”),
therefore
Research strategy
Combined inductive and deductive loop
(grounded theory is a very specific example of
this type of approach)
Choices
Mono method (data collection from source
materials, qualitatively analysed)
Time horizons
Longitudinal (study over a number of years,
namely John’s reign)
Data collection and analysis See as per ‘choices’.
Source materials are
both secondary and primary.
23
6. Conclusion
This paper has considered various methods for
researching taxation history, from the perspectives of
different academic approaches – social sciences generally,
law, history and legal history.
While on the surface, approaches may appear very
different, once a detailed analysis is done of what is actually
going on, there is an underlying similarity between the
different academic areas.
The great difference is that law, history and legal history
generally do not seek to analyse or justify their approaches
with as much formality as the social sciences.
24
6. Conclusion
This is perhaps because social science is conscious of
borrowing its methodology and methods from pure science
and that consciousness brings with it an awareness of the
need to justify that borrowing in support of newer areas of
study that themselves felt the need for academic validation.
Law and history, however, have a longer academic history
that did not perceive this same need.
Are we over-emphasising research methodology/methods?
25
Thank you for listening.
Questions?
26
References
- Baker, Sir John (2012). Reflections on ‘doing’ legal history. In eds. Musson, A. &
Stebbings, C., Making Legal History: Approaches and Methodology (pp. 7–17). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
- Black, J. and MacCraild, D.M. (2000). Studying History, 2nd edn. Basingstoke, Hants.:
Palgrave.
- Cantor, N.F. and Schneider, N.F. (1967). How to Study History. Illinois: Harlan Davidson
Inc.
- Frecknall-Hughes, J. (2012). Re-examining King John and Magna Carta: Reflections on
Reasons, Methodology and Methods. In eds. Musson, A. & Stebbings, C., Making Legal
History: Approaches and Methodology (pp. 244–263). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
- McKerchar, M. (2010). Design and Conduct of Research in Tax, Law and Accounting.
Sydney: Lawbook Co., Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Ltd.
- McKerchar, M. (2008). Philosophical paradigms, inquiry strategies and knowledge
claims: Applying the principles of research design and conduct to taxation. eJournal of
Tax Research, 6(1): 5–22.
- Musson, A. and Stebbings, C. (2012), Making Legal History: Approaches and
Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Oats, L. (ed.) (2012a). Taxation: A Fieldwork Research Handbook. London and New York:
Routledge.
- Oats, L. (2012b). Tax research going forward. In Oats, L. (ed.) Taxation: A Fieldwork
Research Handbook, pp. 242–245. London and New York: Routledge.
- Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students, 5th edn. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd – FT/Prentice Hall.
27